By John W. Lillpop

Conservatives who voted for George W. Bush in either 2000 or 2004, or both, have once again been stabbed in the back by the most liberal president to occupy the White House since Jimmy Carter.

To begin with, W decided that fiscal responsibility, as a basic tenant of conservative governance, is not all that important. Thus, his refusal, until recently, to veto out- of- control spending bills that have contributed to a massive federal debt that will encumber future generations for years to come.

Then it was “No Child Left Behind,” which W saw fit to approve at the urging of Senator Teddy Kennedy, the embodiment of anti-conservative thought if ever there was one.

Whatever happened to the conservative notion that school policy was best left in the hands of local educators and citizens, rather than in the hands of reckless Washington politicians more interested in pork and getting re-elected than the quality of education? Why does the Department of Education continue to exist as a Cabinet-level department?

A $10 trillion entitlement was next on the W anti-conservative agenda, this one for prescription drugs for seniors. Anyone with half a heart empathizes with seniors on fixed incomes struggling to pay for expensive medicines.

But why should senior medical bills be dumped on the backs of young and middle aged taxpayers? Why is carrying for seniors not best left to their families, churches, philanthropists, and other private charitable institutions?

To any conservative worth his weight in Ronald Reagan bumper stickers, defending the homeland is the only genuine responsibility of government.

Yet W has refused to secure our borders during a time of war, and has stupidly advocated amnesty for as many as 38 million illegal aliens who have invaded America.

These are positions one would expect from the likes of leftists such as Dennis Kucinich or George McGovern.

Why has W retreated so completely from the conservative concepts of secure borders, rule of law, and American sovereignty?

Just when it appeared as though W had lurched to the left as much as humanly possible without joining the Democrat party, news leaked out this week that the administration has filed a legal brief that suggests that gun rights are limited.

Specifically, the brief argues that since gun ownership is subject to “reasonable regulation,” all gun limits imposed by the federal government should be affirmed as constitutional.

“Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment,” he wrote U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement in the brief.

WND: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59770

Whatever happened to the conservative position that gun ownership is an inalienable right granted by the Second Amendment, and that no infringement of that right is acceptable?

In analyzing the performance, or lack thereof, of the Bush administration over the past seven years, the overwhelming question that surfaces is this:

Whatever happened to the idea that conservatives are better stewards of the public trust and treasure because of their commitment to fiscal restraint, individual responsibility, small government, rule of law, and law and order?

Has George W. Bush single-handedly destroyed conservatism in America?